Lynn Collins was awesome I love that they didn’t have some frail weakling looking woman as the lead.
Been a fan of the Martian Tales for three decades and that’s how long I’ve been waiting for this damn movie to come out.
I finally got to see it, and I loved it.
There were a lot of problems with it but there was also much that was good. I really appreciated how the story is about John Carter and not some idiotic Hollywood vision of what some ignorant studio executive thinks Burroughs ought to have written about.
I thought Dejah Thoris was absolutely magnificent. Not just the actress, who is clearly extremely attractive, but the character herself. Not only was Deetee a stunning beauty but I was satisfyingly convinced that I was looking at the Incomparable One herself (and at a princess of warlike Mars, with the drool-worthy physique that should go with it). Simply breathtaking.
The prologue was largely wasted time that I wish could have been devoted to JC’s time among the green men of Mars. The decision to give JC a slain family and haunted memories thereof was classic Hollywood cagal meant to inspire a sympathetic reaction in the audience. Complete bullshit, but it barely put a dent in the movie as far as I’m concerned.
I was a bit disappointed with the clothing, and felt that we needed more harnesses and fewer robes among the non-central characters. On the other hand Deetee’s, JC’s, and the Tharks’ harnesses were pretty darn good. The skin tones of most non-central characters could have used more effort too (almost seemed like they forgot to apply reddish tint to several actors).
I do wish we could have seen more of Kantos Kan, played by James Purefoy (who even managed to have a grand time in that absolutely horrendous series, Camelot) but no doubt he’ll feature more in the sequels.
I was happy that the director tried to respect much of the original material. I’m perfectly happy to see JC jump like a flea on meth even though it would physically impossible in Mars’s gravity. That enormous miscalculation was in the books and was a key plot element, so the film remained faithful to its source material. A+.
I was somewhat disappointed to see this film make the same mistake of the recent (and far inferior) Conan: Hollywood’s need to have a grand arch-nemesis that needs to be defeated before the film can be wrapped up tends to ruin even great stories (like Conan’s). It’s both funny and sad when film-makers take it upon themselves to “correct” written stories that have stood the test of time. The beauty of the Martian tales is that one adventure would follow another; destroy one major enemy and another even more dangerous one would present itself in some remarkable plot twist. Still, didn’t make me hate the film by any means (unlike Conan).
And really, the Therns did not need to be the bogeymen in this episode. I found their shape-shifting teleport spiel highly irritating, and when I saw how much screen time was being devoted to them and the roaming city I immediately suspected that we wouldn’t be seeing JC attempt to restart one of Mars’s ancient atmosphere factories.
Perhaps the greatest disappointment for me was seeing how the White Apes were handled. Making these lethal creatures into steroid-abusing King Kongs belittled them, ironically. The arena fight was essentially Luke Skywalker versus the Rancor (another piece of irony, considering how heavily Lucas drew from the Martian Tales).
Still loved this film and I look forward to the sequels, hopefully with the same director at the helm.
I really don’t understand the negative critical reactions. As far as science fiction blockbusters go, this was a heck of a lot better than the vast majority of dreck that gets thrown at popcorn-gobbling audiences. It seems most critics were predisposed to hate this film before they’d even stepped into the cinema. I keep reading critical comments like “problems with pacing”, and my response is that if the pace of the original stories had been maintained the audience would leave that cinema physically exhausted and probably considerably lighter. So, Mr. critic: extract your head from your ass and go write a review of some generic romantic comedy, you ignorant sop. If you want someone to pace you, get a running coach and some fresh air and stop imposing your cheesy arbitrary standards on daring efforts worthy of recognition like John Carter.
I hope they make more films like this one. And I think they have a chance to get it exactly right in the sequel. If it’s got Dejah Thoris in it, I’ll be watching no matter what, but I really think this could be the start of a great series.
It seems to me that the line on John Carter before it was completed, much less released, was that it was a flop. If it was a horse race I would tend to think “The fix is in.”
I am puzzled by the critics’ reactions. The review in my newspaper lampooned the movie pretty harshly.
But most of the things he was making fun of, were things that were faithful to the book.
Sure, it’s not Great Art. But Burroughs never pretended to be an Artist. He was an entertainer, and he wrote entertaining books, and this was an entertaining movie.
A good movie should not [edit to add: just] be faithful to a book it was based on. Most good or even great books make horrible movies when adapted too closely, especially century-old science fantasy.
The storytelling of a book is different from the storytelling of a movie, and failure to recognize that is a sign of a poor director, past accomplishments notwithstanding.
Edit: I don’t mean to say that it can’t be done well, just that it’s a tradition more honor’d in the breach than the observance.
Just because something is faithful to the book doesn’t mean it is a good idea to put it in a movie.
I was meh on it when I saw it 10 days ago at a press screening, was slightly harsher on it by the time I wrote my review, and it has only continued to degrade in my memory. As I said to a friend who asked over the weekend “it was fine, nothing awful, but I could probably be convinced to hate it.”
I wasn’t looking for Great Art. I’m familiar with the books. But with Andrew Stanton aboard, I will admit I was kind of hoping he’d transcend the material. He did after all, make the first half of Wall-E. And I’m certainly capable of enjoying stupid action movies (we’ve already had a much better stupid action movie for a Pixar alum recently).
But this just didn’t grab me. It felt like mid-level Roland Emmerich. But better than high level McG. Is that awful? No. But when I end up seeing 80% of the big budget action movies released each year, does it make it something I would go out of my way to recommend? No. If I only saw one big budget thing every year I imagine I’d be quite carried along, but I’m guessing that by the end of this year I’ll have seen 10 blockbuster action movies that were better, because I’m pretty sure I did in the previous year.
A good movie ought not necessarily be faithful to the book, although there are many cases that are. In any event, this is irrelevant to the point he was making
He wasn’t saying that the storytelling was rigorously faithful to the book (It’s not), but that critics were criticising elements of the book that were in the movie.
You can argyue that things ought to be changed, but presumably the reason you are doing a film based on this book is precisely because you want to include ideas, scenes, and characters that are in the book. Otherwise, why even bother to purchase the rights? Yet the critics seem to be complaining about precisely this.
I’m reading the linked review and I don’t see the cited “making fun of … things that were faithful to the book.” I’m sure this is because I’ve never read the books. Perhaps if I could get some of them pointed out, it would help.
As long as no egg laying was mentioned, we’ll be fine.
I got that vibe, too. It’s a shame, because it’s a good movie that deserves sequels (but the way things are going, probably won’t get them).
I found this movie a helluva lot more entertaining than Avatar.
On reflection, I think that the critics are being terribly unfair to what the story is supposed to be. It’s pulp. It should be enjoyed as such. The production certainly rose above the material and attempted to be significant. I think that this benefited the movie experience, but $250 million is a huge sum of money to lavish on such pulp when it probably won’t earn that money back.
I would have liked more very scantily clad pretty women. I very much enjoyed the Thunes (assuming I remember the names of the shape shifters) and the editing for how they changed disguises was really well done, and delightfully simple.
I can’t believe I never read the books. This kind of schlock was my thing during the 70s.
I just went to see it, partly because I was jonesing for a GoingToAMatinee experience to celebrate the end of this term’s classes, and partly because you-all were positive about it.
I liked it very much, and the lack of plot-superfluous bimbos didn’t bother me at all. In fact, I find I’m enjoying sci-fi movies more and more as scriptwriters and directors become more open to the possibilities of female characters and extras as fully integrated members of imagined alien societies, rather than just mandatory eye candy who obviously are there merely for the purpose of boobies.
I’ve never read any of the John Carter books (though I did read the same author’s Tarzan), but I might take a look at them now. Yes, I’ll be rather disappointed if there isn’t any sequel; I thought the movie created characters and stories that were worth my caring about and that I’d like to revisit. Also, super-fast monster doggie! 
+1.
I’d gladly see it again - and probably even purchase the DVD when it arrives. I have no interest whatsoever in seeing Avatar again.
I just saw this. I am utterly baffled by critics negative reviews. Granted I’m a sucker for movies about “big damn heroes,” but still I thought this was better than a lot of big budget action fests, including Avatar. The plot was hokey but well done, and the action scenes were awesome, a real throwback to the old pulp magazines, with a bit of hand waving about low gravity to justify it. I liked that there was no silly explanation about why mars had people and monsters on it. You just bought it or you didn’t. I thought the Tharks were well done, staying just on the right side of “noble white man enlightens savage tribe” side of things. The flying machines and other martian tech was beautiful. I wonder how much Michael Chabon had to do with the finished screenplay.
That would be an interesting conversation between John and Dejah. Since Humans and Red Martians are completely identical externally (didn’t the Red Martians literly have red skin in the books?) I doubt it would to either of them that their reproductive systems are so different until Dejah was actually pregnant and causally mentioned something like making a nest or having the royal incubator brought down from storage.
Everyone was completely naked in the books except for jewelry and the odd harness that left the genitals exposed. Clothing was unheard of except strictly for warm when traveling in the polar regions. Good luck getting that onscreen. 
There were also gay prison farms on Barsoom. No, I am not kidding. It’s right there in the original book. Found it in “A Princess of Mars.” I’m gonna spoiler box the link cause it’s NSFW … authentically naked Dejah Thoris art, plus some other naked or nearly naked toons:
At one point in A Princess of Mars, Burroughs mentions Carter wearing a cape. AFAIK, capes were never mentioned again in the series. That’s clothing of a sort.
I see the movie is up to (a measly) $53 million domestically, but $126 million overseas, for $179 million total. Wonder if it will cover its $250 million budget in the near term. (I have a feeling it will in the long term, as the movie is discovered and given a second life domestically on TV and DVD.)
I’m wondering whether the critics would have liked this movie more if it had been released in June rather than March. Releasing the film outside the traditional Christmas and summer popcorn seasons is a clear message from the studio that they don’t think their expensive eye candy film is any good, and that may have biased the critics negatively before they even stepped into the theater. I’m not saying this is a cinematic masterpiece, but it was much more enjoyable than the harsh reviews lead me to believe it would be.